|
On January 31 2012 20:32 BioTech wrote:
In Star Wars parlance: Osama has turned many in the USA to the 'dark side'. In the War on Terror many Americans have adopted the values of evil rather than using good to fight evil.
You dont need to torture or break your laws [established over centuries] to defeat terrorism.
Some in the USA are squandering the good will the world showed them post 9-11.
Lastly, friends of mine have told me LAX airport stuff are downright rude...but I would judge the whole country on the actions of a bitter few.
The point of terrorism (it's in the name) is to get people and the government afraid enough to lose their values. It worked, they won.
|
On January 31 2012 20:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: (although this specific situation may have been a bit over the top, do you really think America is going to risk another 9/11?).
not risking it at any cost is not very good and is harming the freedom of the country more than possible attacks.
and if somebody really wants to do damage, he'll probably still find a way, especially when he doesn't care to die.
|
On January 31 2012 20:21 kinglemon wrote:
how did the sc2 player bomber made it through the airport ?
This !!!
Oh come on people, stop defending your authorities. Most of them are decent people, but legislation is messed up and must be changed in order for shit to start getting right. This is extreme paranoia, if you support this mentality, don't call out conspiracy theorists for being paranoid, it's the same level of paranoia in both groups.
One guy said that if they found a terrorist they wouldn't say... Oh really ? They used "terrorist" pretexts to detain more than 100k drug users/dealers and found about 20 possible terrorists ( by possible I mean they would commit violent acts, probably bomb some stuff ). They abuse the law nowadays without regard to human rights, and you should all see that giving such power to people only leads to suicide...suicide of the society. It's rather sad from some point of view to see that we have the potential to become something amazing but... well ego gets in the way.
|
On January 31 2012 20:22 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 20:18 don_kyuhote wrote:
tweet "I'm going to bomb London during the Olympic" before you go to UK and find out what happens. Because that's definitely the same thing.
I think the same thing would be "Off to go destroy the Olympics! We're gonna have a killer time! Haha!"
Also fairly certain that- if the Twitter post was caught in time- that guy would be investigated as well.
|
Sounds way more ridiculous when you see it written on the report.
![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/30/article-0-1184EC23000005DC-998_468x553.jpg)
|
I think there's enough blame for both sides. While in -this- case most people would conclude that it was a gross overreaction from DHS, imagine another scenario :
A couple of Middle East descent / nationality announced a similar thing in another virtual public venue. Let's say a popular Iranian forum.
Were the DHS to let go the couple in the first case and detain / question the second couple then it would amount to (airport) racial profiling which is illegal.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
|
This is an outrage. The remains of Marilyn Monroe is of the up most importance to national security. The fact that this attack was attempted right as the new Marilyn Monroe movie was released was probably no coincidence. Looks like we dodged another 9/11. I still think the remains should be moved to a more secure location for the time being. This is the last thing we needed. More fuel for the ever growing tension between the US and UK that will ultimately lead to a nuclear holocaust. When they read about WWIII in the history books, they will say it started here, gentlemen.
|
On January 31 2012 19:31 29 fps wrote:
those british tourists will return to the UK unhappy, and then all their friends will know about how terrible the experience was. as a result, there will be fewer tourists from the UK，meaning there'll be less revenue... besides money, america's reputation will be negatively affected as well.
as silly as that sounds, its actually true. The number of stories about American Home Land Security is only on the increase and all of them are insane. I was listening to the GiantBomb cast a few weeks ago and Patric has a 'Jewfrow' and while he was traveling to and from family inside of the US, he had his hair searched... wtf?!
Stories like this help put me off going to America.
|
On January 31 2012 20:34 Wrongspeedy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 20:27 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 31 2012 20:18 SolHeiM wrote:On January 31 2012 20:16 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 31 2012 20:15 xrapture wrote:
So if someone tweets they are going to destroy America before they fly in from a foreign country, Homeland Security shouldn't even bat an eyelash? Technically they shouldn't be monitoring twitter, its illegal. What? You're putting it out there for the public to see. How is it "illegal"? Please, enlighten me. There is no authority under the constitution for the federal government to blanket monitor all public discourse. http://news.discovery.com/tech/fbi-monitor-social-networks-120127.htmlSeems like they think its legal.
Lol, of course they do.
|
On January 31 2012 20:35 kinglemon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 20:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: (although this specific situation may have been a bit over the top, do you really think America is going to risk another 9/11?). not risking it at any cost is not very good and is harming the freedom of the country more than possible attacks. and if somebody really wants to do damage, he'll probably still find a way, especially when he doesn't care to die.
I'm not saying *at any cost*, and I would never agree to this slippery slope fallacy. But they would be remiss to investigate someone who explicitly uses death terminology against America, even if it can be read in multiple ways. I get the partying reference. Really, I do. But it's hardly even a question based on our recent history what would be the logical steps to take when something like this is presented. It pretty much had to be checked out just in case. It was a crappy choice of words.
|
On January 31 2012 20:37 yzzdups wrote:
This is an outrage. The remains of Marilyn Monroe is of the up most importance to national security. The fact that this attack was attempted right as the new Marilyn Monroe movie was released was probably no coincidence. Looks like we dodged another 9/11. I still think the remains should be moved to a more secure location for the time being. This is the last thing we needed. More fuel for the ever growing tension between the US and UK that will ultimately lead to a nuclear holocaust. When they read about WWIII in the history books, they will say it started here, gentlemen.
Oh..u are good.......very good xD
|
On January 31 2012 20:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 20:15 xrapture wrote:
So if someone tweets they are going to destroy America before they fly in from a foreign country, Homeland Security shouldn't even bat an eyelash? If someone is stupid enough to tweet this without recognizing the consequences, I pretty much expect them to be checked out. Yeah. I t's like walking over to a cop and telling him you're going to commit a serious crime later on in the day. You *can* do it, even if you're joking or using play-on words or a figure of speech. Because hey, you're exercising your right to freedom of speech! And then he's going to exercise his right to detain and investigate your ass because now you've given him reasonable suspicion, and legal authorities (*especially* when it comes to terrorism and stopping another 9/11 scare) are going to put the safety of the country before your own comfort- especially when you're the one who went out of your way to be a bonehead and be tactless in your conversational rhetoric. Better safe than sorry... it's not even like this was a random search that ended up detaining people who said nothing awkward. They became blips on the radar for a reason, however silly it may be to those of us who use "killing" words in colloquial speech. That being said, I don't really like the fact that they had to share cells with drug addicts (*actual* convicted felons) and ended up being sent home anyway in the end. They should have been treated and questioned in a more humane way, and then let go when nothing was found.
He didn't go at the airport and say they gonna bomb and dig out marilyn monroe. They tweeted to their friends that they gonna destroy america ( slang for party as explained ) and dig out marilyn monroe ( wtf is this supposed to mean anyways ).
Don't ever say, better be safe than sorry ... that quote is only available if you wanna bring a gun to a forrest filled with bears, in case for some retarded reason you want to camp, or never walk in a dangerous DC neighborhood alone at night.
I don't really know how this mentality is being perpetuated, the only way I see it is... repeat lie, repeat lie, repeat lie...ok now it's true. You know this is a basic strategy to perpetuate lies as truths in dictatorships.
After they explained their language, they still got kicked without a refund or a sorry or nothing.
|
On January 31 2012 20:32 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 20:26 Wrongspeedy wrote:On January 31 2012 20:22 Sated wrote:On January 31 2012 20:18 don_kyuhote wrote:
tweet "I'm going to bomb London during the Olympic" before you go to UK and find out what happens. Because that's definitely the same thing. It is... Wrong. It's more specific, for a start. If someone specifically says they are going to bomb somewhere then officials have a right to be suspicious, at least suspicious enough to investigate. "We're going to destroy America" is so unspecific that it borders on the ridiculous as far as being a threat goes, and when coupled with the Monroe joke it becomes an obviously non-serious threat. Context is important.
By definition, context allows interpretation and consequently misinterpretation. Leave room for interpretation and on a long enough timeline or for a significant number of repetitions, the system will fail.
What they did was stupid. End of story.
|
United Arab Emirates5090 Posts
somehow I just keep getting the security asshole from harold and kumar 2 in my head when I read the article
|
In all likelihood it was the TSA that was responsible for this. They do work closely with FBI and NSA, but their roles are relatively limited compared to the TSA when dealing with airports. Chances are, the algorithm used by TSA picked something up, then they alerted some lower level officials inside the airport, and then they overreacted. See what recently happened with Senator Rand Paul, for example. The TSA changed security procedures recently, and it's not going over so well with most people. This article does reek of sensationalism though, and both parties are responsible for overreacting here. Chill out with the nation bashing.
BUT
+ Show Spoiler +
LA is the last place on Earth that needs more of these hipsters. Congrats on fighting the hipster scourge, TSA, job well done.
|
On January 31 2012 20:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2012 20:35 kinglemon wrote:On January 31 2012 20:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: (although this specific situation may have been a bit over the top, do you really think America is going to risk another 9/11?). not risking it at any cost is not very good and is harming the freedom of the country more than possible attacks. and if somebody really wants to do damage, he'll probably still find a way, especially when he doesn't care to die. I'm not saying *at any cost*, and I would never agree to this slippery slope fallacy. But they would be remiss to investigate someone who explicitly uses death terminology against America, even if it can be read in multiple ways. I get the partying reference. Really, I do. But it's hardly even a question based on our recent history what would be the logical steps to take when something like this is presented. It pretty much had to be checked out just in case. It was a crappy choice of words.
But they did not only investigate it (which might have been something one can agree with), they actually came to the conclusion that those people really are a threat in that investigation. Which can only mean that they are stupid, malicious, or have some very strange guidelines if this is true.
What i find a bit strange at the moment is that noone has attacked that source, i though daily mail was pretty much pure bullshit. Is there a more credible source for this?
|
On January 31 2012 20:18 don_kyuhote wrote:
tweet "I'm going to bomb London during the Olympic" before you go to UK and find out what happens.
Nothing will happen, cos according to ppl in this thread tweeting about bombing stuff is actually proof that you are not a terrorist 
|
Do they really think that serious terrorists would fucking TWEET their attack? What the hell.
Just the fact that they are monitoring stuff like this is comical.
|
What i find a bit strange at the moment is that noone has attacked that source, i though daily mail was pretty much pure bullshit. Is there a more credible source for this?
That was my impression of the daily mail as well.
|
I agree they should gave been checked out, but banned and thrown out after being checked and allowing them to plead their side of the story and how it was a misunderstanding, is a joke. Surely they didn't think they would do it, unless they didn't believe them, which I find strange. How fucking stupid can you be though for writing that though?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7BBXA.jpg)
